Good will and good intentions aren’t enough, unfortunately. Even intelligence, by itself, isn’t enough to save us from being propagandized; some fairly intelligent people have fallen for propaganda operations like QAnon and Russiagate. If you want to have a clear perspective on what’s really going on in the world, you’ve got to have an unwavering devotion to knowing what’s true that goes right down into your guts.

Most people don’t have this. Most people do not have truth as a foremost priority. They probably think they do, but they don’t. When it comes right down to it, most people are more invested in finding ways to defend their preexisting biases than in learning what’s objectively true. If they’ve got a special hatred for Democrats, the confirmation biases that this will give them leave them susceptible to the QAnon psyop. If they’ve got a special hatred for Trump, they’re susceptible to believing he’s controlled by some kind of Russian government conspiracy. There are any number of other directions such biases can carry someone.

Only by a humble devotion to truth that is willing to sacrifice any worldview or ideology to the uncompromising fire of objective reality can skilfully navigate through a world that is saturated with disinformation and propaganda. Sincerely put truth first in all things, while doing your best to find out what’s actually going on in our world, and eventually you’re guaranteed to free yourself from any perceptual distortion.

Caitlin Johnstone

Why Russia Saved The United States

By Cynthia Chung

Whenever the government of the United States shall break up, it will probably be in consequence of a false direction having been given to public opinion. This is the weak point of our defences, and the part to which the enemies of the system will direct all their attacks. Opinion can be so perverted as to cause the false to seem true; the enemy, a friend, and the friend, an enemy; the best interests of the nation to appear insignificant, and trifles of moment; in a word, the right the wrong, and the wrong, the right. In a country where opinion has sway, to seize upon it, is to seize upon power. As it is a rule of humanity that the upright and well-intentioned are comparatively passive, while the designing, dishonest and selfish are the most untiring in their efforts, the danger of public opinion’s getting a false direction is four-fold, since few men think for themselves.

– James Fenimore Cooper (The American Democrat 1838)

I think it is evident to most by now that the United States is presently undergoing a crisis that could become a full-blown second civil war.

Some might be wondering, is it really so bad that the U.S. could possibly collapse in the not-so-distant future? After all, isn’t it acting like the worst of empires? Isn’t it wreaking havoc on the world today? Is it not a good thing that it collapse internally and spare the world from further wars?

It is true that the U.S. is presently acting more like a terrible empire than a republic based on liberty and freedom. It may even be the case that the world is spared for a time from further war and tyranny, if the U.S. were to collapse. However, this is unlikely and it most certainly would be only temporary, since the U.S. is not the source of such monstrosities but rather is merely its instrument.

This paper will go not only go through why this is the case and but will also analyze Russia’s historical relationship to the U.S. in context to its recognition of this very fact.

The Great Liberators

In 1861, the Emancipation Edict was passed and successfully carried out by Czar Alexander II that would result in the freeing of over 23 million serfs. This was by no means a simple task and met much resistance, requiring an amazing degree of statesmanship to see it through. In a speech made by Czar Alexander II to the Marshalls of Nobility in 1856 he stated:

You can yourself understand that the present order of owning souls cannot remain unchanged. It is better to abolish serfdom from above, than to wait for that time when it starts to abolish itself from below. I ask you to think about the best way to carry this out.

The success of this edict would go down in history as one of the greatest accomplishments for human freedom and Czar Alexander II became known as the ‘Great Liberator’, for which he was beloved around the world.

Shortly after, in 1863, President Lincoln would pass the Emancipation Proclamation which declared “that all persons held as slaves” within the rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.” There is astonishingly a great deal of cynicism surrounding this today. It is thought that because Lincoln did not announce this at the beginning of the war it somehow was never genuine. However, Lincoln was always for the abolishment of slavery and the reason for his delay was due to the country being so at odds with itself that it was willing to break into pieces over the subject, an intent that Lincoln rightfully opposed and had to navigate through.

Former slave and Lincoln ally, Frederick Douglass, though himself frustrated with the delay to equal rights, understood after meeting and discussing his concerns with Lincoln that the preservation of the country came first, stating:

“It was a great thing to achieve American independence when we numbered three millions [slaves], but it was a greater thing to save this country from dismemberment and ruin when it numbered thirty millions. He alone of all our presidents was to have the opportunity to destroy slavery, and to lift into manhood millions of his countrymen hitherto held as chattels and numbered with the beasts of the field.”

For more on the Lincoln-Douglass story refer to my paper.

In addition, there are many speeches Lincoln gave while he was a lawyer, where he most clearly and transparently spoke out against slavery. In a speech at Peoria, Illinois (Oct 16, 1854), 7 years before he would become president, Lincoln stated:

This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men among ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principle of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.”

During the civil war lord Robert Cecil (later called the Marquess of Salisbury and three-time Prime Minister of Britain) expressed his viewpoint on the matter in the British Parliament:

The Northern States of America never can be our sure friends because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commercially…With the Southern States, the case is entirely reversed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With them, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural ally.” [emphasis added]

By 1840, cotton made up more than half of American exports. More than 75% of slave cotton was exported to Britain. American slave cotton was the centerpiece of the British Empire’s world cheap-labor system.

The autumn of 1862 would mark the first critical phase of the Civil War. Lincoln sent an urgent letter to the Russian Foreign Minister Gorchakov, informing him that France was ready to intervene militarily and was awaiting England. The salvation of the Union thus rested solely on Russia’s decision to act.

The Foreign Minister Gorchakov wrote in response to Lincoln’s plea:

You know that the government of United States has few friends among the Powers. England rejoices over what is happening to you; she longs and prays for your overthrow. France is less actively hostile; her interests would be less affected by the result; but she is not unwilling to see it. She is not your friend. Your situation is getting worse and worse. The chances of preserving the Union are growing more desperate. Can nothing be done to stop this dreadful war? The hope of reunion is growing less and less, and I wish to impress upon your government that the separation, which I fear must come, will be considered by Russia as one of the greatest misfortunes. Russia alone, has stood by you from the first, and will continue to stand by you. We are very, very anxious that some means should be adopted–that any course should be pursued–which will prevent the division which now seems inevitable. One separation will be followed by another; you will break into fragments.”

Russia’s proclaimed support in its letters to Lincoln would be put to the test during the summer of 1863. By then, the South’s invasion of the North had failed at Gettysburg and the violent anti-war New York draft riots also failed and Britain, as a result, was thinking of a direct military intervention with the backing of France. What would follow marks one of the greatest displays of support for another country’s sovereignty to ever occur in modern history.

The Russian Navy arrived on both the east and west coastlines of the United States late September and early October 1863.

The timing was highly coordinated due to intelligence reports of when Britain and France were intending their military action. The Russian navy would stay along the US coastline in support of the Union for 7 months! They never intervened in the American civil war but rather remained in its waters at the behest of Lincoln in the case of a foreign power’s interference.

If Russia had not done this, Britain and France would most certainly have intervened on behalf of the Confederate states as they made clear they would, and the United States would have most certainly broken in two at that point. It was Russia’s direct naval support that allowed the United States to remain whole.

Czar Alexander II, who held sole power to declare war for Russia, stated in an interview to the American banker Wharton Barker on Aug. 17, 1879 (Published in The Independent March 24, 1904):

In the Autumn of 1862, the governments of France and Great Britain proposed to Russia, in a formal but not in an official way, the joint recognition by European powers of the independence of the Confederate States of America. My immediate answer was: `I will not cooperate in such action; and I will not acquiesce. On the contrary, I shall accept the recognition of the independence of the Confederate States by France and Great Britain as a casus belli for Russia. And in order that the governments of France and Great Britain may understand that this is no idle threat; I will send a Pacific fleet to San Francisco and an Atlantic fleet to New York.

…All this I did because of love for my own dear Russia, rather than for love of the American Republic. I acted thus because I understood that Russia would have a more serious task to perform if the American Republic, with advanced industrial development were broken up and Great Britain should be left in control of most branches of modern industrial development.” [emphasis added]

What was Czar Alexander II referring to exactly when mentioning the advanced industrial development of the American Republic? Well, in short he was referring to the Hamiltonian system of economics. Notably, Alexander Hamilton’s 1791 Report on the Usefulness of the Manufactories in Relation to Trade and Agriculture which was published in St. Petersburg in 1807, sponsored by Russian Minister of Finance D.A. Guryev.

It was Hamilton who pioneered a new system of political economy coming out of the war of Independence which saw America bankrupt, undeveloped, and agrarian. Hamilton solved this problem by federalizing the state debts and converting it into productive credit, channelled by national banks into large scale internal improvements with a focus on the growth of manufacturing. Anyone wishing to learn more about this should read Anton Chaitkin’s recent publication Who We Are: America’s Fight for Universal Progress.

In the introduction to the translated Hamilton pamphlet, Russian educator V. Malinovsky wrote:

The similarity of American United Provinces with Russia appears both in the expanse of the land, climate and natural conditions, in the size of population disproportionate to the space, and in the general youthfulness of various generally useful institutions; therefore all the rules, remarks and means proposed here are suitable for our country.”

This “American system” was what Tsar Alexander II recognised as the only economic system to have successfully challenged the system of empire, which he recognized as the root of all slavery. The ineffective and ultimately costly labour of slaves was no match for competing against a machine tool industry to which Frederick Douglass attested. The construction of rail that was made possible through the development of this machine tool industry is what freed countries from Britain’s maritime supremacy.

The “American System”

In 1842, Czar Nicholas I hired American engineer George Washington Whistler to oversee the building of the Saint Petersburg-Moscow Railway, Russia’s first large-scale railroad. In the 1860s, Henry C. Carey’s economics would be promoted in St. Petersburg’s university education, organised by US Ambassador to Russia Cassius Clay. Carey was a leading economic advisor to Lincoln and leading Hamiltonian of his age.

Sergei Witte, who worked as Russian Minister of Finance from 1889-1891 and later became Prime Minister in 1905, would publish in 1889 the incredibly influential paper titled “National Savings and Friedrich List” which resulted in a new customs law for Russia in 1891 and resulted in an exponential growth increase in Russia’s economy. Friedrich List publicly attributed his influence in economics to Alexander Hamilton.

Lincoln’s Pacific Railroad superintendent, General Grenville Dodge, advised Russia on its Trans-Siberia railroad, built with Pennsylvania steel and locomotives from 1890-1905.

In his 1890 budget report, Sergei Witte- echoing the Belt and Road Initiative unfolding today, wrote:

The railroad is like a leaven, which creates a cultural fermentation among the population. Even if it passed through an absolutely wild people along its way, it would raise them in a short time to the level requisite for its operation.

Sergei Witte was explicit of his following of the American model of political economy when he described his re-organization of the Russian railways saying:

Faced by a serious shortage of locomotives, I invented and applied the traffic system which had long been in practice in the United States and which is now known as the “American system.”

By 1906, Czar Nicholas II of Russia supported the plan for the American-Russian Bering Strait tunnel, officially approving a team of American engineers to conduct a feasibility study.

Russia would complete the trans-Siberian railway in 1905 under the leadership of “American System” follower Count Sergei Witte. On its maiden voyage the Trans-Siberian rail saw Philadelphia-made train cars run across the Russian heartland, and it is no accident that all of the key players involved in the Alaska purchase were also involved in the Russian continental rail program on both sides of the ocean.

Bismarck’s Zollverein

In 1876 Henry C. Carey organized the centennial exhibition where 10 million people from 37 countries came to Philadelphia to see the achievements of the United States in its advancements in machine tool industry, which propelled their economy to the first in the world.

Only three years later, Otto von Bismarck broke Germany’s free trade system implementing an American style tariff policy for his nation. The kinship between Germany and the United States became so strong at this time that Otto von Bismarck’s speech in the parliament (1879) was quoted by McKinley on the floor in US Congress:

A success of the United States in material development is the most illustrious of modern time. The American nation has not only successfully born and suppressed the most gigantic and expensive war of all history, but immediately afterward disbanded its army, found employment for all its soldiers and marines, paid off most of its debt, given labour and homes to all the unemployed in Europe as fast as they could arrive within its territory and still by a system of taxation so indirect as not to be perceived, much less felt… Because it is my deliberate judgement that the prosperity of America is mainly due to its protective laws, I urge that Germany has now reached that point, where it is necessary to imitate the tariff system of the United States.”

Otto von Bismarck was heavily organising for the building of the Berlin to Baghdad railway, which after much resistance and delay would only be completed in 1940. If this has been accomplished during Otto von Bismarck’s life, the Middle East could have avoided the Sykes Picot carving up.

In 1869, Japanese modernizers working directly with the Lincoln-Carey strategists ran the Meiji Restoration which industrialized Japan.

In the 1880s and 90s, Lincoln-Carey Philadelphia industrialists were contracted for huge infrastructure and nation-building projects in China. Hawaiian Christian missionary Frank Damon, having participated in the Carey group’s strategies at a very high level, helped instigate, shape, and build the Sun Yat-sen organization that gave birth to modern China.

Sun Yat-sen referred to his admiration of Lincoln’s USA as the basis for a new multipolar system saying:

“The world has been greatly benefited by the development of America as an industrial and a commercial Nation. So a developed China with her four hundred millions of population, will be another New World in the economic sense. The nations which will take part in this development will reap immense advantages. Furthermore, international cooperation of this kind cannot but help to strengthen the Brotherhood of Man.”

How Did We End Up Where We Are Today?

With such a glorious outlay of cooperation and common interests across the globe united against an economic system of empire, it begs the obvious question “What went wrong? How did we end up where we are today?”

To give one a quick glimpse into the reason why, let us look at some of the major assassinations and soft-coups from the late 19th century and early 20th century of American system proponents (refer to the image below).

Henry C. Carey stated it best when he described the situation as such, in his “Harmony of Interests” (1851):

“Two systems are before the world; the one looks to increasing the proportion of persons and of capital engaged in trade and transportation, and therefore to diminishing the proportion engaged in producing commodities with which to trade, with necessarily diminished return to the labor of all; while the other looks to increasing the proportion engaged in the work of production, and diminishing that engaged in trade and transportation, with increased return to all, giving to the laborer good wages, and to the owner of capital good profits… One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other in increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of elevating while equalizing the condition of man throughout the world.”

We have yet to conclude the victor between these two opposing systems, the fight is not over and we would be foolish to give up at the finishing line. What we do today will decide the course of things in the future, and whether we live under a true recognition of freedom and prosperity, or whether we are ruled-over and our liberties treated as “privilege,” that can be given or taken based on the judgement of a ruling class, remains to be seen.

Thus, let us hearken to the words of Lincoln, who in a debate with the slave power’s champion Stephen Douglas, said:

That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles – right and wrong – throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.”

The author can be reached at cynthiachung[originally published on Strategic Culture]

Rhodes Scholars Surge In Biden’s Potential Cabinet

by Matthew Ehret via Strategic-Culture

With Trump’s ascension to the presidency in 2016, the Rhodes Scholars that had permeated the U.S. Deep State over many years found themselves choking on humble pie as they were removed from the drivers’ seat of world affairs for the first time in decades. The paradigm of post-nation state unipolarism that had been carefully built up over the post-WWII period had somehow been successfully challenged by an outsider as the republic was slowly returned to its patriotic traditions as a nation committed to non-interventionism, industrial progress and protectionism.

The In the last few days, it has become clear that these Oxford-trained Rhodes Scholars have re-emerged as leading voices in Biden’s cabinet, and since a general understanding of this problem is so lacking today (leading many patriots to be duped into believing that the evil Chinese are at the heart of their woes), I think some preliminary words are needed as a matter of historical context.

Cecil Rhodes’ Vision Revisited

Every year since its creation in 1902, over 30 talented young American scholars have been rewarded each year with the privilege of an all-expenses paid brainwashing in the halls of Oxford University on the dime of the riches left to posterity by the deceased race patriot diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes before being re-deployed back to their home nations.

Rhodes’ early disciples included such luminaries as Lord Alfred Milner, Sir Halford Mackinder, George Parkin, W.T. Stead and the Canadian oligarch Vincent Massey (to name a few). His early backers included high level figures among the British intelligentsia including Prince Edward Albert and Lord Nathaniel Rothschild who saw that a new strategy was needed to halt the spread of American System policies around the world in the wake of Lincoln’s victory over the South during the Civil War.

At the time, anyone with half a brain knew that the unipolar days of the British Empire were coming to an end as a new multipolar system of win-win cooperation was emerging… and this was a prospect deemed intolerable by many devout social Darwinists among the British ruling class.

These early Rhodians interfaced closely with London’s Fabian Society throughout the 20th century and became the new disciplined elite that gradually infiltrated every branch of society. This new breed of imperial managers exerted its influence in much the same way earlier Jesuit operations had been formed and deployed across Europe beginning in the 16th century.

For anyone confused as to the purpose of this Rhodes Scholarship program, one need look no further than Rhodes’ 1877 Confessions of Faith and 7 wills which called for domination of the “inferior races” to Anglo-Saxon superiority, and the ultimate recapturing of America and the creation of a new Church of the British Empire:

“Let us form the same kind of society, a Church for the extension of the British Empire. A society which should have its members in every part of the British Empire working with one object and one idea we should have its members placed at our universities and our schools and should watch the English youth passing through their hands just one perhaps in every thousand would have the mind and feelings for such an object, he should be tried in every way, he should be tested whether he is endurant, possessed of eloquence, disregardful of the petty details of life, and if found to be such, then elected and bound by oath to serve for the rest of his life in his Country. He should then be supported if without means by the Society and sent to that part of the Empire where it was felt he was needed.’

In another will, Rhodes described in more detail his intention: “To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world. The colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, these aboard of China and Japan, [and] the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.”

Describing his thinking to his disciple W.T. Stead, Rhodes wrote: “Please remember the key of my idea discussed with you is a Society, copied from the Jesuits as to organisation”.

A Calamitous 20th Century

As generations passed, the continuity of purpose that transcended individual lives of players on the stage was maintained by certain organizations that grew out of the original Rhodes/Milner Round Table movements and which had branches in every part of the Anglo-Saxon part of the British Empire. By 1919 after the Round Table had taken control of Canadian and British governments during 1911 and 1916 coups, this group created the Royal Institute for International Affairs (aka: Chatham House). By 1921, an American branch was set up called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) staffed with Rhodes Scholars and Fabians which has maintained a continuity of intention to the present day. This organization spawned dozens of influential sub organizations which always interface with a form of “central command”.

A young student of Harvard’s William Yandell Elliot (himself a Rhodes Scholar who operated the Oxford Branch of Harvard) was none other than Sir Henry Kissinger who stated gushingly at a May 10, 1981 Chatham House event:

“The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.

While the Rhodes Scholar hives managed to permeate ivy league schools, media outlets, private corporations, elected offices and the civil service during the 20th century as laid out by Professor Carrol Quigley’s posthumously published The Anglo-American Establishment, the prize of the presidency remained an elusive trophy… until the day that one of Quigley’s students returned from Oxford and became Governor of Arkansas.

Clinton Opens the Floodgates

With Clinton’s 1992 presidential victory, Rhodes Scholars like Strobe Talbott (Assistant Secretary of State and co-architect of Perestroika) and Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor), were joined by Rhodies Ira Magaziner, Derek Shearer (Senior Economic Advisors), Susan Rice (Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs), Kevin Thurme (Health and Human Services Chief of Staff), George Stephanopoulos (Communications Director) and dozens of other Rhodes Scholars. These individuals were funneled into positions of influence aiming to oversee the “end of history” celebrated by neocon thinker Francis Fukuyama as the Soviet Union disintegrated.

While some Rhodies remained in positions of power during the period of the Straussian controlled opposition of 2000-2008, the Rhodes Hives again enjoyed vast policy-shaping influence under the Obama-age where the architecture for one world government was built on the wreckage of troublesome nation states like Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Despite the set back caused by a populist deplorable who wrestled the reins of power away from these self-professed experts in 2016, a Rhodie is a stubborn creature if nothing else, and as we have discovered in past months, both Talbott and Rice have been revealed to be two figures at the heart of the Russiagate plot designed to undo the results of 2016. While still serving as Brookings Institute President in 2015-17, it was Talbott who interfaced with MI6’s Sir Richard Dearlove and Christopher Steele in the months before the elections by cooking up and circulating the dodgy dossier and it was Rice who was revealed to be at the center of the “unmasking” entrapment operation conducted on a bewildered Michael Flynn in January 2017.

Revenge of Rice and the Rhodies

With the recently announced appointment of Susan Rice as director of Biden’s Domestic Policy Council, it has become apparent that the Rhodies are drooling at the prospect of correcting the “aberration” of Trump by re-ascending to the inner sanctum of Washington D.C., bringing in droves of Clinton-Obama era unipolar zombies with them.

Beyond Rice, other Rhodes Scholars emerging into positions of control include National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan who graduated from Oxford’s Magdalene College and worked under Strobe Talbott at the Brookings Institute’s Center for the Study for Globalization at Yale in 2000. During this time, Rice had also come to work as Senior Fellow at Brookings followed by a stint as UN Ambassador from 2009-2013 and National Security Advisor from 2013-2017, while Sullivan went onto become Biden’s top security aid during the Obama years.

Describing her love of Oxford, Rice delivered remarks at Rhodes House in 1999 saying: “To be at Rhodes House tonight with so many friends, benefactors and mentors is a personal privilege. It is like a coming home for me for much of what I know about Africa was discovered within these walls, refined at this great university with generous support of the Rhodes Trust.”

It is worth keeping in mind that as she spoke those words, Rice had recently demonstrated her imperial worldview by coordinating the destruction of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998 and threatening South Africa with economic destruction unless it gave up its desires for producing generic and affordable AIDS medication in the same year. Her work to carve up Sudan, promote military intervention across the Arab and African worlds under R2P and supranational organization’s like Soros’ International Criminal Court (ICC) that issued an arrest warrant for President Bashir would have made Cecil Rhodes proud. We should not forget that the Sudan-Libya-Egypt alliance under the combined leadership of Mubarak, Qadhafi and Bashir, had moved to establish a new gold-backed financing system outside of the IMF/World Bank to fund large scale development.

Pete Buttigieg

As of this writing, Rhodes Scholar Eric Garcetti (LA Mayor) has been pulled from the Biden cabinet due to a growing mountain of scandals, and corruption in his local state which have turned him into political poison for the time being.

The other Rhodes Scholar mayor Pete Buttigieg, has been more fortunate however and has been given the keys to Transport portfolio as of December 15, although had first been poised to take the position of US Ambassador to China. While many Trump supporters are being induced to hate and fear China as the “natural enemy of the USA”, it was in fact Buttigieg who demonstrated that his disdain for Trump was only paralleled by his disdain for China when he said in May 2020: “Beijing sees an opportunity to call into question the American project and liberal democracy itself. One thing they’re banking on is four more years of Trump.”

As I laid out in my previous report, Soros himself has repeatedly labelled the two greatest threats to his “open society” as 1) Xi Jinping’s China and 2) Trump’s USA.

Another Rhodie named Bruce Reed who had originally entered Washington as part of the first 1992 Rhodes Scholar infusion as the Clinton-Gore campaign manager and later director of Clinton’s Domestic Policy Council, has been tapped as the top tech advisor to Biden where he has openly called for cracking down on free speech online by cancelling Federal Internet law Section 230. This law currently keeps website owners free of prosecution for content published on their sites. It’s cancellation would crush what dwindling free speech exists on social media. The argument advanced by Reed has been that Section 230 has been used by Russian and Chinese operatives to infiltrate the information ecosystem and manipulate western elections. With its repeal, Facebook and other social media sites will be forced to censor all “illicit” thought crimes under fear of federal prosecution.

Reed had earlier teamed up with Biden in drafting the infamous 1994 crime bill which placed countless petty criminals to long-term sentences, benefiting the prison cheap labor complex. During the Obama years Reed worked as Biden’s Chief of Staff and lead handler.

Blinken, Malley and Soros

While Biden’s pick for Secretary of State Anthony Blinken is not himself a Rhodes Scholar, he is a life-long friend and classmate with Robert Malley (a Rhodes Scholar who had formerly acted as Special Assistant to Obama serving as “point man in the middle east” at the NSC). Earlier, Malley had been special assistant to Bill Clinton on Arab Israeli Affairs and was always deeply enmeshed with George Soros’ operations from day one of his entry into politics. Since 2016, Malley has acted as President and CEO of the International Crisis Group (ICG) founded by George Soros and Lord Malloch Brown in 1994 as a tool to promote global humanitarian wars under the guise of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Joining Soros, Malloch-Brown and Malley at the ICG, we should not be surprised to find none other than… Jake Sullivan.

Additionally, Blinken’s father Donald Blinken made a name for himself as Soros’ point man in Hungary from 1994-1998 where he served as US Ambassador facilitating the growth of Soros’ Open Society Foundation. He was later rewarded by the Hungarian speculator with a “Donald and Vera Blinken Open Society Archive” (OSA) at Budapest’s Central European University. The Soros-funded university was created in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and Blinken was instrumental in that operation.

President Viktor Orbán knew exactly what he was doing when he expelled this foreign anti-nation state brainwashing operation from Hungary’s borders in 2018. At the time, Central European University President Count Michael Ignatieff screamed “This is unprecedented. A U.S. institution has been driven out of a country that is a NATO ally.”

A Segue on Count Ignatieff

It is noteworthy that Ignatieff is himself the son of Rhodes Scholar globalist George Ignatieff and great grandson of Count Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev (founder of the Russian Okhrana secret police) whose family was rewarded handsomely for services rendered to London-centered oligarchy during the overthrow of the Czarist system in Russia (sort of a precursor to today’s modern Color Revolutions). This story is partially told in Cheney Revives Parvus’ Permanent War Madness by Jeff Steinberg (2005).

As a sidenote, Michael Ignatieff’s great grandfather on his maternal side is none other than George Parkin, the first controller of the Rhodes Trust from 1902-1922 and the man whose Oxford lectures and books inspired Cecil Rhodes and Milner to devote their lives to the cause of Empire. Michael is also a global board member of Soros’ Open Society Foundations headed by none other than Mark Malloch Brown (as of December 4, 2020).

As I laid out in my recent report, not only did these two upper level managers come to light as coordinators of the Dominion/Smartmatic vote fraud operation underway within the USA, but both have also pioneered the new age of regime change color revolutions beginning with Marcos’ 1986 ouster during the Peoples’ Power revolution in the Philippines, through the Balkans, Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Moldova, Bolivia, etc.

Some Final Thoughts

While the Rhodes Trust has been close to the causal nexus of much of recent world history, no one should assume that every Rhodes Scholar is guilty by association. It is an undeniable fact that some Rhodes Scholars have broken with their training and have gone on to live useful lives and I see no reason to assume, for instance, that actor/singer Kris Kristofferson played a nefarious role in anything (though some of his film choices were a bit weak).

Similarly, Canada’s John Turner did some very useful things in his short stint as Canadian Prime Minister which earned him the ire of many unipolarists then promoting NAFTA, Maastricht and the Euro. Even Bill Clinton was induced to break from his profile on a few occasions and support some good things that ran contrary to the world government agenda under the positive influence of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown (whose convenient death in 1996 alongside 34 journalists and business executives in Croatia ended that pesky issue- a story for another time).

The key thing to hold in mind is that longer waves of history are shaping the present more than most historians would care to admit. Anyone taking an intention-driven approach to historical analysis will come to recognize quickly enough that events that took place centuries ago have an active impact on the events playing out today.

How and why is this so? Because history is shaped by IDEAS. Good ideas that are in tune with the truthful nature of reality vs bad ideas that are out of tune with said reality. But this battle over ideas (and ideas about ideas e.g.: Plato’s higher hypothesis) is where the causal nexus of universal history is found. With this in mind, we can see clearly how certain people use their influence to conspire and create cultural and political institutions that transmit those ideas and organizing principles across many generations. Sometimes we find these forces to be acting in harmony with natural law (as in the case of Benjamin Franklin and his international network of co-thinkers) and sometimes very much in defiance of natural law.

Today’s battle between the opposing paradigms of the multipolar alliance led by Russia and China on the one hand vs the unipolarist/post-nation state worldview on the other has everything to do with these longer forces of history. The only way to comprehend the color revolution playing out within the USA, or the anomalous emergence of Rhodes Scholars shaping the possible Biden presidency, is by recognizing this higher reality. This exercise may cause you to think about thinking differently, and at first may be uncomfortable, but just as the figure released from the cave who slowly accustoms his/her eyes to the light of the sun and reality, the satisfaction of enjoying a higher order of truthfulness is incomparably more pleasant to a life believing in the shadows cast by an elite class of puppeteers.


Fewer than 400 Healthy People under 60 Have Died of Covid in England, so it’s Not Wrong to Question our Response to the Pandemic

by By Damian Wilson via RT

Statistics that show just 0.8 percent of Covid fatalities between April and December were made up of healthy people under 60 caused a major storm. But it’s quite right to use them to ask if universal lockdown is a good approach.

Post-Christmas Covid-19 cabin fever has gripped Britain and, sick of arguing with their families, our rarely-sought, often-found self-appointed ‘experts’ are asking why, in a world that revolves pretty-much around themselves, they must stick by the current tier system restrictions.

Everyone loves a good barney, particularly over the festive season, and when the teams are split into ‘Keep ’em in’ and ‘Let us out,’ everyone has an opinion.

Stamping their feet and shouting like infants denied the last mince pie, sofa scientists insist they be released from their tier-4 prisons right this instant, so they can get on with their lives, whatever grim endeavour that might entail. Elsewhere, the paranoid germophobes shriek in horror at the very suggestion that a winter sniffle be ignored, in case it escalates into the killer virus.

As long as you are not stuck in a house with the nothing-better-to-do-narcissists on either side of this debate, it is fun to see them tear lumps out of each other during this season of goodwill to all. The problem is that nothing really comes of it.

Statistics that show just 0.8 percent of Covid fatalities between April and December were made up of healthy people under 60 caused a major storm. But it’s quite right to use them to ask if universal lockdown is a good approach.

Post-Christmas Covid-19 cabin fever has gripped Britain and, sick of arguing with their families, our rarely-sought, often-found self-appointed ‘experts’ are asking why, in a world that revolves pretty-much around themselves, they must stick by the current tier system restrictions.

Everyone loves a good barney, particularly over the festive season, and when the teams are split into ‘Keep ’em in’ and ‘Let us out,’ everyone has an opinion.

Stamping their feet and shouting like infants denied the last mince pie, sofa scientists insist they be released from their tier-4 prisons right this instant, so they can get on with their lives, whatever grim endeavour that might entail. Elsewhere, the paranoid germophobes shriek in horror at the very suggestion that a winter sniffle be ignored, in case it escalates into the killer virus.

As long as you are not stuck in a house with the nothing-better-to-do-narcissists on either side of this debate, it is fun to see them tear lumps out of each other during this season of goodwill to all. The problem is that nothing really comes of it.

So far the reality is that, across the whole of the UK, 70,752 deaths have been attributed to Covid-19. Be clear, this is too many. But now, with roughly 10 months’ experience of this virus from nearly 2.3 million cases and having failed miserably on track-and-trace, on protecting care homes and in communicating clear messages, our offline leaders should be applying a bit more creative thought as to how this situation might look come the new year.

Because things are grim and show few signs of improvement.

A friend of mine offered two Christmas meals to neighbours via a local area app, presuming some lonely old Doris or Derek would take up her offer, being that sort of neighbourhood.

She was shocked to be inundated with takers who were largely young men, living on their own. And that is sad. Because while we can all imagine a solitary pensioner sitting by the window in a comfy chair as Christmas passes by, we never think of independent, confident, gregarious 20-somethings slowly losing their marbles, having suddenly found themselves isolated in Boris Johnson’s last-minute lockdown.

It would make a terribly off-colour episode of Friends. The one where Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Joey, Chandler and Ross all go mad and top themselves.

It’s Long Past Time For CDC To Clean-Up The COVID-19 Death Counts

Authored by Stacey Lennox via,

Some of us have been questioning the COVID-19 death counts reported by the CDC through the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) for some time.

Of course, CNN and the corporate media love the likely elevated counts to push their narrative. Lockdown Inc. loves them to justify their destruction of lives and livelihoods. A report from the Freedom Foundation, a Washington State think tank, explains why. The foundation’s original analysis of deaths in the state found the number may have been inflated by as much as 13%:

In May, a report released by the Freedom Foundation, an Olympia-based free-market think tank, revealed the DOH was attributing to COVID-19 every death in which the deceased previously tested positive for the virus. However, it’s clear that catching the disease and dying of it are two very different matters.

Washington’s data was riddled with cases – as much as 13 percent of the total – in which the death certificate made no reference to COVID-19 as a cause of death. In several cases, even gunshot deaths were chalked up to the virus.

While the Department of Health did remove 200 deaths from the count, the Freedom Foundation did another analysis. Combining data sources from the Department of Health for nearly 2,000 deaths as of early September, the new analysis found that 170 death certificates did not mention COVID-19. Another 171 deaths had no causal connection to the virus. According to the Post Millennial, the group estimates Washington’s death counts could be inflated by as much as 20%.

New data from the CDC regarding the conditions contributing to deaths where COVID-19 is also involved clearly demonstrates deaths from the virus are overestimated nationwide. This is not surprising given the loose guidelines for attributing a death to COVID-19 and the financial incentives through public and private insurance to put COVID-19 on a patient’s chart.

First, as I have written several times, many COVID-19-positive people who were terminally ill died a few months before they otherwise would have. These “pull-forward deaths” often happen with influenza and pneumonia when a person is elderly or severely compromised. For example, the data shows 3,622 people over the age of 75 died of hypertensive renal disease with kidney failure. Kidney failure is a progressive and terminal condition, even with kidney dialysis. An additional 939 in the same age group died with lung cancer as well as COVID-19.

Second, the report demonstrates most younger patients were also suffering from a different severe illness if they died from COVID-19. On the same line for kidney failure, a total of 18 people under the age of 35 passed away with this condition and COVID-19. Ten people under the age of 35 died with acute lymphoblastic lymphoma (ALL) in addition to the virus. The average five-year survival rate in this age group is between 68.1% and 85%, leaving the distinct possibility that these were the sickest ALL patients.

These are just a few examples of terminal conditions that could have been examples of a pull-forward death. Since there is nothing in the NCHS guidance to require symptoms or evidence of active COVID-19, it is impossible to tell whether or not these were pull-forward deaths. As Washington demonstrates, some of this error will come from state-level practices. New York, for example, backdated 3,700 “presumed COVID-19 deaths” early in the pandemic.

The above does not even include the broad class of ICD-9 Codes referred to as “Intentional and unintentional injury, poisoning, and other adverse events.” This report contains 9,343 deaths associated with everything from drug overdoses to traumatic accidents and suicide. These deaths alone equal 3% of the current number of total deaths.

It is long past time for the CDC and NCHS to require some evidence of a severe illness from COVID-19 rather than simply a positive test. There are significant numbers of lab values and imaging changes that, taken together, can reasonably be assumed to paint a clinical course that includes active illness from COVID-19. The best test would be a viral culture. If the virus or viral debris in a patient’s system cannot replicate in a culture, it can’t be a cause of death.

A positive PCR test within 28 days, the current standard Washington is now using, is also unacceptable, especially with the number of asymptomatic cases. A virus that never makes you sick or only makes you mildly ill will not kill you or likely contribute to your death. Rather, you are likely one of the 30-60% of people with reactive immunity from other coronavirus exposure. Likewise, if someone already suffers from a terminal illness, unless the end-stage events include symptoms of severe COVID-19, it should not be counted among the causes of death.

A scroll through the spreadsheet and a bit of clinical knowledge supports the estimate of the Freedom Foundation as a minimum number. Americans deserve transparency and accuracy at this point. It is a dereliction of duty for the CDC and NCHS not to tailor their guidelines to the disease progression of a COVID-19 infection capable of contributing to a person’s death.

But How Much Has Putin Done For Russia?

by Leonid Voronin via StalkerZone (Excerpt)

There are people who don’t know how much Putin has done for Russia. After 17 years:

  • Putin increased Russia’s budget 22-fold, military spending 30-fold, GDP 12-fold (Russia jumped from 36th place in the world in terms of GDP to 6th place);
  • Increased gold and foreign exchange reserves 48-fold!
  • Returned 256 mineral deposits to the Russian jurisdiction (it is left to return 3!);
  • Disrupted the most “liberal” production-sharing agreement in history – the PSA (see below);
  • Nationalised 65% of the oil industry and 95% of the gas and many other industries;
  • Raised industry and agriculture (Russia has been ranked 2nd-3rd in the world in terms of grain exports for 5 years in a row, overtaking the US, which is now in 4th place);
  • Increased average salaries in the public sector 18.5-fold in 12 years, and average pensions 14-fold.
  • Reduced the extinction of the Russian population from 1.5 million people a year in 1999 to 21,000 in 2011, i.e. a reversal 71.5-fold.

In addition, Putin:

  • Canceled the Khasavyurt Accord – defending the integrity of Russia;
  • Made known the NGO-5th column and banned deputies from having accounts abroad;
  • Defended Syria;
  • Stopped the war in Chechnya.

Putin’s cancellation of the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) is a great achievement. The PSA was an agreement under which America plundered Russia since the 90s and in return Yeltsin got loans. Putin fought for its abolition for almost 4 years with the help of numerous successive amendments. So the abolition of the PSA caused incredible hatred in America for Putin, as he took away from them the unhindered plunder of Russia.

The Constitution of 1993 weakened Russia so much that it was difficult in the early 2000s to resist America without consequences, so Putin had to maneuver about how to solve Russia’s problems and at the same time not expose the country to being torn apart, like Libya and Syria. Gaddafi paid with his life for the idea of changing the settlement currency from the Dollar to Euro and Gold. Now Libya is in ruins…while Russia is thriving.

Social Planning vs. Planning One’s Life

“Whatever people do in the market economy, is the execution of their own plans. In this sense every human action means planning,” Mises wrote in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis.

“What those calling themselves planners advocate is not the substitution of planned action for letting things go. It is the substitution of the planner’s own plan for the plans of his fellow-men. The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan.”

Rand Paul Ridicules Mask-Wearing as ‘No Science’ Behind It

by Benjamin Fearnow Source: Newsweek

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said “no science” is able to corroborate mask mandates across the country, warning Americans that “submission” is the real aim of public health officials.

The Republican senator on Saturday reiterated remarks he made to Fox Business Thursday that “there’s no science to keeping schools closed, and there’s actually no good science to keeping restaurants closed, in fact there’s no good science that anything we’ve done has changed the trajectory” of the pandemic.

Speaking with Breitbart News at the Turning Point USA convention—a gathering of young conservatives—in West Palm Beach, Florida, Paul said minor health precautions as simple as washing one’s hands and keeping socially distant have made “no difference” in slowing the spread of coronavirus.

Paul, who practiced ophthalmology for 18 years before becoming a senator in 2010, ridiculed government mandates and just about any other public health measure taken since the start of the pandemic in March. Previous reports have noted that Paul’s medical certification is contested by some national ophthalmology board members.

He warned young Americans their high school graduation ceremonies and possibly their 10-year wedding anniversaries a decade from now will be banned by the government if “we’re not careful” to protect our individual freedoms today.

“Every one of the mandates—and you look in country after country, state after state — you look at when the mask mandates went in—the incidents went up exponentially after the mandates. Restaurants, nobody can eat in a restaurant, there’s no science behind any of that,” Paul told Breitbart’s editor-in-chief, who mocked masks as “face diapers.”

Regardless of Paul’s remarks, the federal government that employs him does not agree with his anti-mask sentiment. “Wearing a cloth face mask, practicing social distancing, and washing your hands are good practices that help protect us and our neighbors from COVID-19 as our economy reopens,” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) tells Americans in a statement issued this summer. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also put out similar warnings to health-conscious citizens looking to curb the spread of COVID-19.

Paul embraced the Breitbart editor’s mockery of wearing masks, noting later in the interview, “It’s like wearing your underwear. You might as well cut your underwear up and wear your underwear as protection. It doesn’t work.”

“None of it really makes any sense, and there’s no epidemiological evidence. You know, it’s like, ‘Wash your hands, stand six feet apart,’” Paul continued.“There’s no evidence that that slowed down the [spread]. The trajectory of the virus hasn’t been altered at all by any of these things.”

Vaccine ID Is Easier Said Than Done

Charles Hugh Smith Source: Of Two Minds

Sure they want them. Can it actually be done?

Authorities around the world have made it clear that they will do “whatever it takes” to vaccinate their citizenry with one of the first available vaccines. Authoritarian states may mandate universal vaccinations while less authoritarian states will favor a “carrot and stick” approach of offering benefits to the vaccinated and exclusions from employment, education, travel and most of everyday life for those who refuse to be vaccinated.

To identify the vaccinated and unvaccinated, many nations are planning to issue ID cards or “vaccine passports.” As an abstraction, this seems straightforward, but if we start digging into the actual operational requirements of this mass ID card issuance and distribution, a number of common-sense issues arise.

Vaccination cards will be issued to everyone getting Covid-19 vaccine, health officials say (CNN)

First and foremost, it’s unknown how long the immunity offered by the vaccines will last. It’s still early days, so there is conflicting evidence: some claim the vaccines will be longer-lasting than the natural immunity of those who caught the virus and recovered, while other evidence suggests the immunity might decay after six months. Despite claims that natural immunity is long-lasting, a non-trivial number of people who had Covid have been re-infected.

Nobody knows how long either natural or vaccine immunity will last because not enough time has elapsed to collect sufficient data.

Given these intrinsic unknowns, how long will the ID card be valid? It’s easy to imagine variations in individual responses such that the vaccines’ effectiveness decays more rapidly in 20% of the vaccinated. This variability would introduce tremendous unknowns that no ID card could reflect: is the holder of the card at Month 10 still immune or not?

If the duration of the vaccine’s effectiveness is variable, then an ID card could be misleading. In other words, being vaccinated with a variable-duration vaccine tells us nothing about the individual’s actual immunity down the road.

Given these unknowns, the vaccinated may need booster shots in the future, and the ID cards would have to be re-issued. The task of keeping track of hundreds of millions of vaccination records, identities and then issuing ID cards is a non-trivial task.

To thwart black-market fake-ID cards, the security measures will have to be equivalent to a driver’s license or passport. Have you applied recently for either of these forms of ID? The process is painfully slow. The systems in place to process state drivers’ licenses and U.S. passports are already strained, and which agency is prepared to verify the identity of 280 million adult citizens, confirm the validity of their vaccine and then issue ID cards–and then repeat this process in a year?

If the procedures for issuing vaccine ID cards are slapdash due to time constraints–for example, downloading a digital record from the vaccine distributor or a printed card–these will likely be vulnerable to being duplicated or spoofed. Fake vaccine distributors will pop up issuing bogus digital records, hackers might download and sell digital records from trusted sources, and so on.

Then there’s the extra burdens being placed on the staff of airlines, cruise lines, etc. to scan these documents and deal with rejected cards. Who will have the legal authority to deal with claims that a rejected card is actually valid? How many smaller establishments simply won’t have to staff to do more than glance at the card?

Do authorities have the means to issue hundreds of millions of absolutely secure vaccine ID cards and then monitor all the attempts to find loopholes and weaknesses in the process? If authorities think that strict penalties will limit this activity, they underestimate the difficulty in getting such penalties enforced by overloaded court systems.

In nations with strong traditions of civil liberties, there will be pushback against mandatory vaccinations with essentially untested vaccines and against national databases tying identity to vaccination cards–a situation ripe with potential for abuse.

Authorities don’t seem to grasp that many of those hesitating to get vaccinated are not anti-vaxxers; they simply see the vaccine approval process as deeply flawed for common-sense reasons: for example, there is simply not enough data on safety, duration and real-world efficacy.

Authorities are counting on the “carrot” of air travel, cruises and concerts to persuade skeptics to get vaccinated despite their concerns. What authorities don’t seem to realize is that a great many people value their health, privacy and agency far more than they crave air travel, cruises or concerts. They will gladly forego all these activities until more reliable data is collected, peer-reviewed and distributed for analysis.

The more draconian the measures designed to pressure people into getting the vaccines, the greater the reluctance of skeptics who see the draconian measures as additional evidence the vaccines are half-measures being forced on the populace as a means of imposing a false assurance that all is well and “normal” will return as soon as the skeptics cave in and get vaccinated.

There’s also the possibility that the virus could mutate in ways that moot the vaccines’ effectiveness. While this is widely considered unlikely, it’s not impossible, either. If a mutated virus arises that evades the vaccine, then what value will the vaccine ID card have?

An idea that’s simple as an abstraction–vaccine ID cards–turns out to be extremely difficult once real-world operational realities must be dealt with. The fact is the first vaccines have been rushed to approval with virtually none of the testing demanded of previous vaccines raises common-sense concerns which cannot be dissolved with force or carrots and sticks.